Arsten:However, activists (such as 'lolgore' which sounds like someone slaughtering while laughing.....and so i like it) for curbing as much human activity as possible in the name of global warming, especially when some of those activists are also climate scientists, make the climate science community look bad. (As do lazy journalists who print the words "global warming" in anything even remotely related to climate, weather, or temperatures.)

By and large, this really has nothing to do with the huge discrepancy between public opinion on this issue, and the scientific consensus. Rather, there is a clear ideological/cultural cognition effect, as well as an information deficit/misinformation surplus. In other words, people filter the news they consume according to worldview, and also tend to just be generally un-/ill-informed on the topic. The perception of climate scientists as "activists" has no real impact on public opinion that is not already accounted for by these factors.

So this might hold true for you personally, or some blogger that you read, but for the general public your explanation is bullshiat.

Pull the plank from your eye before addressing the splinter in your brother's eye.

In what way am I an "activist"? Or are you implying that I am a journalist?

for the record I believe that AGW is complementing the natural heat cycle we have been in since the last ice age.

That's an incorrect belief. We aren't in a "natural heat cycle we have been in since the last ice age."

Glaciation cycling is paced by variations in the Earth's position to the sun known as Milankovitch (or orbital) forcing. The Last Glacial Maximum (what you mean when you say "the last ice age") reached its fullest extent by ~20 thousand years ago. Orbitally-driven warming (with a big help from feedbacks like ice-albedo, the carbon cycle, etc.) began melting us out around that time and peaked ~9-6 thousand years ago. The last several thousand years have been, prior to the present warming, dominated by slow, Milankovitch-driven cooling.

However, I also know that we have a long way to go before we understand something as complex as the global climate system and how small or large changes in CO2, methane, or other gases affect the system in whole.

The level of complexity involved is determined by the questions we want to answer. The complexity of "if we increase GHGs like CO2, will we warm up and change the climate" is relatively low, and the answer has been known (including the process by which this occurs) for more than a century, going back to Arrhenius, and Tyndall and Fourier before him. The complexity increases with the specificity of the quesitons being asked, but the policy relevant stuff, i.e. will the impact of unchecked emissions growth be large enough and fast enough to impact crucial facets of our civilization (such as coastal infrastructure, agriculture, etc.) has been known for decades.

I am happy to answer any questions you might have about this, and to point you to areas that are still highly uncertain (such as my original comment on tornadogenesis). But please do not make the mistake of believing that there is scientific uncertainty on the broad strokes of the issue, because there is not.

Jon Snow:By and large, this really has nothing to do with the huge discrepancy between public opinion on this issue, and the scientific consensus. Rather, there is a clear ideological/cultural cognition effect, as well as an information deficit/misinformation surplus. In other words, people filter the news they consume according to worldview, and also tend to just be generally un-/ill-informed on the topic. The perception of climate scientists as "activists" has no real impact on public opinion that is not already accounted for by these factors.

So this might hold true for you personally, or some blogger that you read, but for the general public your explanation is bullshiat.

Science is not advanced by consensus. Using that term is something I would attribute to your stated "ideological/cultural cognition effect." The number of times that a new and fantastical ideal that has been rejected by "consensus" and eventually shown to be right is not an insignificant number. You shouldn't be using "consensus" to drive your argument since it's both a statistical fudge and a dishonest way to approach the issue. Any study or questionnaire that has gone out has had the responses cherry picked to provide the highest possible "consensus" which is something I would expect from a soft discipline, such as psychology. Not a physical discipline.

And activists, from both sides, are a huge part of the "ideological/cultural cognition effect." You shouldn't dismiss a core component of your argument.

And the general public, if they feel they are being fooled for any reason (insert ideology here: money, envirowhacko control, teddy bear hostile world takeover, etc), will go with whatever position means they aren't getting screwed. So when you have a climate scientist come forward and say "HEY, we should do X because my research said Y." most people go "Okay, makes sense." But when you then politicize the issue and all the politicians and activists for the cause go "Hey, we NEEEEEEED to do X." and you can see a very easy way for that politician/activist to make a crapload of money off your back (See Al Gore's carbon credit management company back when he was pushing for carbon credits), you start to question things. And when you further find out that some of those climate scientists are in bed with the activists, you start to question things even more and push back hard on them, since things aren't adding up in your brain.

THIS is the point that a lot of people find themselves at. Highly polarizing political BS from both sides doesn't help.

Pull the plank from your eye before addressing the splinter in your brother's eye.

In what way am I an "activist"? Or are you implying that I am a journalist?

I am implying that you should rid your ideological camp of it's own baggage before attacking the other camp's baggage. It would really be nice to have the news pages be about scientific fact instead of people on both sides decrying motives behind certain research papers. (That paper doesn't matter! It's from James Hansen! That research paper doesn't matter! It's from Exxon! and on and on an on)

for the record I believe that AGW is complementing the natural heat cycle we have been in since the last ice age.

That's an incorrect belief. We aren't in a "natural heat cycle we have been in since the last ice age."

Glaciation cycling is paced by variations in the Earth's position to the sun known as Milankovitch (or orbital) forcing. The Last Glacial Maximum (what you mean when you say "the last ice age") reached its fullest extent by ~20 thousand years ago. Orbitally-driven warming (with a big help from feedbacks like ice-albedo, the carbon cycle, etc.) began melting us out around that time and peaked ~9-6 thousand years ago. The last several thousand years have been, prior to the present warming, dominated by slow, Milankovitch-driven cooling.

The 11,000-year climate reconstructions show a distinct rising trendline, with departures for large-scale variations over ranges of 300-700 years, until the end of the Little Ice Age, where the temperatures flattened and started warming (a little or a lot, depending on how much you trust indirect temperature recreation data) around 1840-1870. We are also within 2 C of the Medieval Warm Period's estimated maximum.

So, is this humans destroying the earth or is the earth not even noticing we are here? Or are we simply (or not so "simply") accentuating an extant climatological system?

The level of complexity involved is determined by the questions we want to answer. The complexity of "if we increase GHGs like CO2, will we warm up and change the climate" is relatively low, and the answer has been known (including the process by which this occurs) for more than a century, going back to Arrhenius, and Tyndall and Fourier before him. The complexity increases with the specificity of the quesitons being asked, butthe policy relevant stuff, i.e. will the impact of unchecked emissions growth be large enough and fast enough to impact crucial facets of our civilization (such as coastal infrastructure, agriculture, etc.)has been known for decades.

The effects of those gases and their releases in a lab setting have been known. Applying those to how the earth reacts specifically to rising counts of the gas is poorly understood. CO2, for instance, is so far along it's logarithmic scale that concentrating on the release of CO2 is not an effective use of policy. We aren't even closing the barn door after the horse bolts, we are burning down the barn after 13 generations have lived there and then saying that we are doing something.

I am happy to answer any questions you might have about this, and to point you to areas that are still highly uncertain (such as my original comment on tornadogenesis). But please do not make the mistake of believing that there is scientific uncertainty on the broad strokes of the issue, because there is not.

The broad strokes are known, but they have not been put into a standard scientific model that has born fruit. None of the global climate models can make predictions that come true. We are constantly evolving them, but you can't go "What happens to the earth if we completely and totally cease all CO2 production, today?" because how the earth functions in whole with those gases in the atmosphere has large unknowns.

Most climate models use estimations for parts of the system that aren't well understood. You'll often hear about "positive feedback" in the models, because there is assumed to be an enhancement of the effect of greenhouse gases in some way, but that "positive feedback" is just a fudge factor.

We don't understand the complexities of the system enough to go off of the physics of the situations by themselves. Yes, increased CO2 increases warming. On a logarithmicscale that's contributing less and less to the heating equation. But even that's exaggerated because a lot of heat absorptive and radiative capacity that may have come from CO2 was taken by water. A swath of absorptive spectrum for CO2 is crossed over by water, which is in enough abundance to have already fully contributed that spectrum's heating effect long before we started racing our engines of industry towards the cliff.

As an aside, the broad strokes are usually the LEAST relevant to policy as they don't get to the cause of the matter and simply regulate to a symptom of something underneath. I would, personally, rather avoid a War on CO2 simply because it's looking like the start to a new War on Drugs. Especially since our biosphere thrives on CO2 and all of the replacements for energy production on both the individual and industrial scale has way worse pollutants in the mix to make them viable at the level that our CO2-producing traditional means are.

I'm not saying the earth isn't warming, but it's far from settled what effect that we have had and what effect we can have on mitigation going forward.

Right! Which is why every single experiment starts with re-establishing basic physics from first principles! Errr.... In reality, science is very much dependent on consensus in order to move forward with new lines of inquiry.

You're spouting talking points at me. Please stop.

This is like a greatest hits of "skeptic"/denialist talking points:

Science is not advanced by consensus.

The number of times that a new and fantastical ideal that has been rejected by "consensus" and eventually shown to be right is not an insignificant number.

Any study or questionnaire that has gone out has had the responses cherry picked to provide the highest possible "consensus"

But when you then politicize the issue and all the politicians and activists for the cause go "Hey, we NEEEEEEED to do X." and you can see a very easy way for that politician/activist to make a crapload of money off your back (See Al Gore's carbon credit management company back when he was pushing for carbon credits), you start to question things.

some of those climate scientists are in bed with the activists

We are also within 2 C of the Medieval Warm Period's estimated maximum.

CO2, for instance, is so far along it's logarithmic scale that concentrating on the release of CO2 is not an effective use of policy.

None of the global climate models can make predictions that come true.

Most climate models use estimations for parts of the system that aren't well understood.

You'll often hear about "positive feedback" in the models, because there is assumed to be an enhancement of the effect of greenhouse gases in some way, but that "positive feedback" is just a fudge factor.

We don't understand the complexities of the system enough

But even that's exaggerated because a lot of heat absorptive and radiative capacity that may have come from CO2 was taken by water. A swath of absorptive spectrum for CO2 is crossed over by water,

This is fake "skeptic" BINGO.

You are regurgitating things you've picked up somewhere but don't understand.

A positive feedback simply refers to a process by which an initial change is amplified. In the real world, when you increase or decrease temperature, you decrease or increase the amount of ice on the planet, resulting in a decrease or increase of albedo, amplifying the initial change in temperature. This is a positive feedback. This is not a "fudge factor". This is not something models are "fudged" to do, it is the emergent behavior of the system as a result of the basic physics involved.

The impact of CO2 is logarithmic. So what? You're saying that like it's some sort of meaningful statement, but it's a superficial piece of trivia. Do you think climate science simply failed to account for this? Or that policymakers are unaware of it? Of course not. That's why talk about things in terms of or relative to doublings of CO2 rather than some sort of absolute increase in ppm. You're throwing things out there as though you think they have some sort of significance that they simply don't.

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas that partially overlaps with CO2's IR absorption band? No kidding! So what? Why are you saying this? What possible relevance do you think this has to our discussion? It sounds an awful lot like you're implying that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is mostly saturated. This is a myth that has been known to be false since 1900.

"Estimations for parts of the system that aren't well understood" are called parameterizations. We use them for processes that we cannot actively model, due either to insufficient computational power, or a lack of sufficient understanding of the relevant processes. Guess what? We don't just plug in whatever number we want, or whatever will give us the answer we want, we use observations to constrain the range of possible values and run sensitivity tests to see what works and doesn't. This is standard practice in modeling systems. For older GCMs that didn't have the computation power to explicitly model the microphysics that underlie particulate and aerosol influence on cloud behavior, we used bulk observations of the atmosphere to parameterize the process instead. "GASP* The horror! Again. You're just throwing out buzzwords and phrases that you clearly don't understand. Why?

"The 11,000-year climate reconstructions show a distinct rising trendline..." No, they sure as shiat don't.

You have failed to say anything that is both meaningful and true when it comes to the physical science, and your complaints about the politicization of the issue are not really relevant to either the policy or the general public's view of the issue.

Why are you acting like you have even an elementary handle on this issue? Why pretend? Is it because you so rarely run into someone who actually understands the topic that you just don't get called out very often? Because you must realize what you sound like to me, regurgitating myths and logical fallacies that have in some cases been proved to be false for more than a century, right?

How do we know what the net response of the climate system will be to an increase in radiative forcing? Besides GCMs, we have the paleoclimatic record.Let me know if I missed any of your talking points.

Jon Snow:Right! Which is why every single experiment starts with re-establishing basic physics from first principles! Errr.... In reality, science is very much dependent on consensus in order to move forward with new lines of inquiry.

Wow. That's a straw man. I hope you didn't break fire codes. For every single article and study you can reference, I can reference another article and study that states the opposite, I don't care which side of the debate you want to look up. I can also state articles and studies that reference a middle ground. Why do you suppose that is? Hm.

Except that they are all relevant questions that everyone steps around in their haste to feel awesome about themselves. But let's not go on what you don't want to bother with.

You are regurgitating things you've picked up somewhere but don't understand.You don't know what I understand, but attacking is easier that addressing points, hm?

A positive feedback simply refers to a process by which an initial change is amplified. In the real world, when you increase or decrease temperature, you decrease or increase the amount of ice on the planet, resulting in a decrease or increase of albedo, amplifying the initial change in temperature. This is a positive feedback. This is not a "fudge factor". This is not something models are "fudged" to do, it is the emergent behavior of the system as a result of the basic physics involved.Wow. So exactly what I said. A fudge factor. Just because you constrain a guess to an area that it has some evidence that it should be within doesn't make it any less of a guess. So where were you on the day in physics class that they told you an educated guess was still a guess?

The impact of CO2 is logarithmic. So what? You're saying that like it's some sort of meaningful statement, but it's a superficial piece of trivia. Do you think climate science simply failed to account for this? Or that policymakers are unaware of it? Of course not. That's why talk about things in terms of or relative todoublings of CO2 rather than some sort of absolute increase in ppm. You're throwing things out there as though you think they have some sort of significance that they simply don't.Policy makers? Really? You think they understand any of this when you clearly think I don't?

The point is that we are trying to regulate a gas that is warming less and less as we continue to dump it out. A gas that, as a side effect, helps our food chain. But, no, you're right. We should replace those horrible gasoline engines with batteries. It's not like lithium perchlorates aren't dangerous or anything. Let's trade a gas with low issues going forward for solids and/or other gases that are worse for the environment! Yay! Between 1988 and 2008 we added roughly 32ppm CO2 and the temperature for the same time period increased by 0.04 degrees C. And some of that wasn't CO2. So how about we try and curtail things like methane instead of CO2 as acceptable policy?

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas that partially overlaps with CO2's IR absorption band? No kidding! So what? Why are you saying this? What possible relevance do you think this has to our discussion? It sounds an awful lot like you're implying that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is mostly saturated. This is a myth that has been known to be false since 1900.Why is it irrelevant that something else has already warmed for CO2 so that if we magically scrubbed CO2 from the atmosphere completely, we wouldn't see all of the desired cooling effect? And also that something we would never get rid of is ALSO a greenhouse gas? And for those bands of absorption from CO2, yes it is fully saturated. So CO2 has lost even more of the warming power. Why are we concentrating on it, again?

"Estimations for parts of the system that aren't well understood" are called parameterizations. We use them for processes that we cannot actively model, due either to insufficient computational power, or a lack of sufficient understanding of the relevant processes. Guess what?We don't just plug in whatever number we want, or whatever will give us the answer we want, we use observations to constrain the range of possible values and run sensitivity tests to see what works and doesn't. This is standard practice in modeling systems. For older GCMs that didn't have the computation power to explicitly model the microphysics that underlie particulate and aerosol influence on cloud behavior, we used bulk observations of the atmosphere to parameterize the process instead. "GASP* The horror! Again. You're just throwing out buzzwords and phrases that you clearly don't understand. Why?Oh no. My mortal enemy. Bad sarcasm. Whyyyyyyyyyyyy? Oh, right. Sorry.Thank you for agreeing with me. You DO guess (I'll give you educated estimation, but I'm nice) because you lack sufficient understanding of the relevant process. Including how the whole system fits together. Every single year, new climatological artifacts that don't fit existing models are discovered, written into the models, and things get better. But I also remember in 1985 predictions of 5C worth of warming by 2000. Models have gotten way better since then, but no one has gone "The climate will be x in 10 years, +/-y." and then waited. No, they give a predictive year and then keep making guesses as to what it'll be every time they revise their model. Last decade, everything from global climate to hurricane seasons (i know, i know. weather.) were predicted way wrong. Why? Because you didn't have the complete picture to make your models work. We are getting better every year, but there are still unknowns.

"The 11,000-year climate reconstructions show a distinct rising trendline..." No, they sure as shiat don't.I apologize. I was remembering a stretched version of the first portion of that graph. I didn't mean to mislead.

So, we've saved ourselves from an ice age, then? Hot damn, I need to take a long trip in a Hummer! Kidding aside, we aren't as hot as we were in the last 11,000 years, then. Why do we desperately need to correct CO2 emissions?

You have failed to say anything that is both meaningful and true when it comes to the physical science, and your complaints about the politicization of the issue are not really relevant to either the policy or the general public's view of the issue.

More attacks. Glee.

Why are you acting like you have even an elementary handle on this issue? Why pretend? Is it because you so rarely run into someone who actually understands the topic that you just don't get called out very often? Because you must realize what you sound like to me, regurgitating myths and logical fallacies that have in some cases been proved to be false for more than a century, right?

I'm sorry you believe that. I'm also sorry that you consider yourself the pinnacle of knowledge on the issue. Perhaps you should digest the studies at the data level no matter the side the article is for or against. I know I'm just a small man, compared to an icon of your stature, but use your benevolence for mankind to get off of your own talking points and actually explore some questions you blindly dismiss as talking points.

Look, buddy. I'm sure you're a nice guy and all. Good to your pets, call your mom on her birthday and what not.

But somewhere along the line, there's been a disconnect. You've dramatically overestimated your ability to have a discussion about this subject. You are simply too ignorant to recognize your ignorance. Don't feel too bad, as this happens to a lot of people. But it's important for you to understand that this is happening, and STOP. Just stop.

Take a step back, clear your head, set aside your ego, and listen:

A feedback mechanism is not a "fudge factor". Someone who believes this to be true simply cannot have a remotely informed discussion about planetary energy balance.This is not a terribly difficult concept to understand- undergraduates across a number of disciplines learn about them every year.

Do you know what Stefan-Boltzmann is? If you had a little bit of physics somewhere along the line, then you do. If not, you may still have heard of it.

(Re-)familiarize yourself with it. Reread it a few times to make sure you understand it. Now- think about what happens to the equilibrium surface temperature of a body when it receives an increase in energy. What does the proportional difference between radiated energy and temperature mean? Does it sound, perhaps, an awful lot like a feedback- specifically a negative feedback?

Can you understand this? If not, don't worry. You probably already know someone who can explain it to you. If you don't, you can reach out to a local university and ask someone in their physics, engineering, or atmospheric science department to help you out. There is no shame in asking for help. The shameful thing to do is to pretend you know what you're talking about when you obviously don't.

When you can understand the concept of a feedback mechanism and recognize that it is no way a "fudge factor" but rather is a fundamental concept in energy flows within systems, I'll be happy to talk to you.

Until then, you're simply not worth the time. And I mean that completely dispassionately and impersonally.

Look, buddy. I'm sure you're a nice guy and all. Good to your pets, call your mom on her birthday and what not.

But somewhere along the line, there's been a disconnect. You've dramatically overestimated your ability to have a discussion about this subject. You are simply too ignorant to recognize your ignorance. Don't feel too bad, as this happens to a lot of people. But it's important for you to understand that this is happening, and STOP. Just stop.

Take a step back, clear your head, set aside your ego, and listen:

A feedback mechanism is not a "fudge factor". Someone who believes this to be true simply cannot have a remotely informed discussion about planetary energy balance.This is not a terribly difficult concept to understand- undergraduates across a number of disciplines learn about them every year.

Do you know what Stefan-Boltzmann is? If you had a little bit of physics somewhere along the line, then you do. If not, you may still have heard of it.

(Re-)familiarize yourself with it. Reread it a few times to make sure you understand it. Now- think about what happens to the equilibrium surface temperature of a body when it receives an increase in energy. What does the proportional difference between radiated energy and temperature mean? Does it sound, perhaps, an awful lot like a feedback- specifically a negative feedback?

Can you understand this? If not, don't worry. You probably already know someone who can explain it to you. If you don't, you can reach out to a local university and ask someone in their physics, engineering, or atmospheric science department to help you out. There is no shame in asking for help. The shameful thing to do is to pretend you know what you're talking about when you obviously don't.

When you can understand the concept of a feedback mechanism and recognize that it is no way a "fudge factor" but rather is a fundamental concept in energy flows within systems, I'll be happy t ...

Wow. And you accuse me of having the ego? psh. Perhaps you should look up "Fudge Factor". It's an addition to a calculation to allow for error or unanticipated circumstances. Pretty much the exact definition of ""Estimations for parts of the system that aren't well understood" are called parameterizations. We use them for processes that we cannot actively model, due either to insufficient computational power, or a lack of sufficient understanding of the relevant processes. " from your previous discussions on the topic. You take an educated guess at what it should be, but it's still a fudge factor filling in for systems you don't fully understand. Just because you are too high and mighty to admit the application of common terms to what you explicitly say doesn't mean it's not true.

At this point, you aren't worth the time to actually educate, since you seem to lack a basic understanding of language but feel compelled to insist on the meaning of words you can't comprehend. I can only hope that English isn't your first language.

Arsten:Perhaps you should look up "Fudge Factor". It's an addition to a calculation to allow for error or unanticipated circumstances. Pretty much the exact definition of

We're talking about feedbacks, not parameterizations.

Try again. And don't just mash something out that is completely non-responsive like you just did. Try to think about Stefan-Boltzmann in the context of my description of what a feedback (not a parameterization, these are distinct concepts) is.

Is there some reason you can't even try to do this? There's no shame in doing the right thing going forward. The shameful is continuing to pretend.

Maybe I can give you some incentive?

What about this? Perhaps you explain, in your own words, how Stefan-Boltzmann describes a negative feedback. No copypasta. Be able to answer a relatively easy question or two just to make sure you're not rewriting a definition you don't understand.

And I will give $1 to the charity of your choice (provided it's not a hate group or something). And then we can move on to another basic concept in planetary energy balance, and I will give another $1 to the charity. And so on. I will max out at something like $50 depending on how it goes. All you have to do, to get a pretty decent donation to a deserving group of your choice, is become knowledgeable about some concepts that are covered in undergraduate atmospheric science/oceanography/geology courses.

If you actually are knowledgeable about this stuff, and you're not just pretending to be ignorant of it, then it will be a very quick and effortless way to get a pretty nice chunk of change to group that can do a lot of good with it. If you're not, but you're a relatively quick study, it will still be a great cost-benefit value to you, because you're already arguing on Fark anyway. Just a token bit of effort, and money goes out of my pocket to some group that will do good with it.

Hollie Maea:I never fail to be astonished by the Great American Myth which states that my input on a subject is valuable no matter how little I know about it.

This is what made me act a little more hostile than I should have. I should have led with the incentives. People respond a hell of a lot better to positive incentives than they do to others pointing out that they've got a skidmark of ignorance trailing down the backseat of their pants.

dkimball: Are you trying to say that Mother Nature isn't as predictable as we thought?

pdee: Thanks Global Warming.

trappedspirit: They have plenty of footage they could air about how global warming caused by humans is going to lead to more and stronger storm systems than anything we have seen before.

If anyone's curious, and doesn't find the LOLALGORE derp to be particularly helpful, the impact of increasing greenhouse gas levels on tornadogenesis remains an area of signifcant uncertainty and active research.

Oh really? So I was just imagining it when IPCC et al first came up with the idea of "climate change", and literally every undesirable weather phenomenon, including tornadoes were going to increase. They were 99.7% consensusey that the science was settled about it.

That prediction fails to come true and suddenly we have a pretentious new word for tornado formation and there is "significant uncertainty".

However, I also know that we have a long way to go before we understand something as complex as the global climate system and how small or large changes in CO2, methane, or other gases affect the system in whole.

The level of complexity involved is determined by the questions we want to answer. The complexity of "if we increase GHGs like CO2, will we warm up and change the climate" is relatively low, and the answer has been known (including the process by which this occurs) for more than a century, going back to Arrhenius, and Tyndall and Fourier before him. The complexity increases with the specificity of the quesitons being asked, but the policy relevant stuff, i.e. will the impact of unchecked emissions growth be large enough and fast enough to impact crucial facets of our civilization (such as coastal infrastructure, agriculture, etc.) has been known for decades.

Utter nonsense. Firstly, the global warming effect that has been known for a century DOES NOT produce warming to a degree we need to worry about. Thus, form a policy point of view, it may as well not exist.

It is modern "climatologists" who made the question more complicated by introducing feedbacks. They selectively picked only or mostly positive ones, and selectively chose their level to create an overall system on the verge of instability. All these are arbitrary choices with absolutely NO empirical validation.

The ONLY support for any of this was the rising trend from 1978 until 1998. But since that trend has stopped for almost as long as it lasted, it no longer suports the feedbacks "theory", but in fact refutes it.

You idiot. Greenhouse effect theory said the upper atmosphere should warm more than anywhere else, and certainly not cool. You climate alarmists have a funny idea of what it means for a "prediction" to come "true". Ah, but then like Orwell's party, you have a strange relationship with the concepts of future and past. For you, the future is fixed and the past is always changing.

Jon Snow:Arsten: Perhaps you should look up "Fudge Factor". It's an addition to a calculation to allow for error or unanticipated circumstances. Pretty much the exact definition of

We're talking about feedbacks, not parameterizations.

So...wait. There's only one feedback, now? Granted it's been awhile, but isn't Boltzmann the calculation of albedo? I would go look it up, but apparently using reference literature is bad.

So, the fact that the ocean-carbon cycle, terrestrial-carbon feedback, ocean methane release, heck, I can come up with more that are all poorly understood in their overall effect (big or small), but they are all parameterizations. Interesting that you distinguish "feedback" to mean "only those things that are firmly understood" and "parameterizations" to mean "only those things that are not firmly understood" and how there is no cross-over between the two. Did I say interesting? I meant intellectually dishonest.

Try again. And don't just mash something out that is completely non-responsive like you just did. Try to think about Stefan-Boltzmann in the context of my description of what a feedback (not a parameterization, these are distinct concepts) is.

It's only non-responsive if you do nothing but concentrate on the smallest details hoping to find a technical detail that you can claim victory over. And that's really the problem with debating you. You continually refocus the conversation away from the discussion into small details that you can claim that win over and feel good about yourself with.

Jon Snow:When you can understand the concept of a feedback mechanism and recognize that it is no way a "fudge factor" but rather is a fundamental concept in energy flows within systems, I'll be happy to talk to you.

Snow, you idiot again already! He knows perfectly well what a feedback is. It's basic school science. Stop trying to make yourself look clever by being bloody condescending!

He described them as a fudge factor because that is how climatologists use them. Climatologists took the 1978-1998 trend (already steepened by urban heat island effects, cherry picking and other "tricks"), found the greenhouse effect was nowhere near enough to explain it and so, instead of rejecting the anthropogenic hypothesis, simply fudged in feedbacks until they got the results they wanted. But since those models have been 100% unsucessful for a decade and a half, it's all well refuted now. The science is settled, six feet under.

And no, the feedbacks are NOT established science. They vary from reasonable theories to wild guesses and NONE have been verified empirically. Even the ones that are real are grossly exaggerated and naturally any negative feedbacks that might also be in operation have accidentally fallen off the bottom of the spreadsheet (oops, butter fingers!)

By the way, if you were as knowlegable as your techno-babble and pathetic attempts at intellectual intimidation seek to imply, you would know that complex natural systems are usually found to have more negative feedback than positive, and in the absence of emprical evidence to the contrary, THAT is the correct assumption for forecasting.

Jon Snow:What about this? Perhaps you explain, in your own words, how Stefan-Boltzmann describes a negative feedback. No copypasta. Be able to answer a relatively easy question or two

Who else gets the impression the Jon is living out some fantasy by trying to set essay assignments to other Fark users?

I've got one... In your own words, describe how chaos theory applies to natural systems and causes them to exhibit scale-invariance in both space and time. Next, discuss the implications of scale-invariance of random fluctuations on the claim that climatology differs from meteorology in the certainty of its forecasts.

Of course not. In the very sentence you quoted me in above I am clearly using the plural. I have already named two feedback processes at work for our own planet (S-B, ice-albedo), and there are many, many more. Both positive and negative.

Please don't ascribe to me positions that I clearly do not hold.

apparently using reference literature is bad.

Again- please don't do that. Using reference literature is not just fine, it's encouraged.

Granted it's been awhile, but isn't Boltzmann the calculation of albedo?

Albedo is a factor in determining the amount of absorbed vs. reflected energy prior to using Stefan-Boltzmann, as well as much further along in determining what the net effect of the change in radiation and change in temperature will do to the entire system.

So no. That's not it. Think more fundamentally.

So, the fact that the ocean-carbon cycle, terrestrial-carbon feedback, ocean methane release, heck, I can come up with more that are all poorly understood in their overall effect (big or small), but they are all parameterizations. Interesting that you distinguish "feedback" to mean "only those things that are firmly understood" and "parameterizations" to mean "only those things that are not firmly understood" and how there is no cross-over between the two. Did I say interesting? I meant intellectually dishonest.

Okay, now I think I see where you're going wrong. You're conflating feedbacks with parameterizations because you apparently think that all of the feedback processes in climate modeling are parameterized? Is that why you seem to be unable to disentangle the concepts?

Go back to Stefan-Boltzmann. Nothing parameterized about it. Explain why it is a negative feedback in the context of planetary energy balance (if you are interested in the donation aspect of our discussion of course, obviously you're free to do as you wish).

t's only non-responsive if you do nothing but concentrate on the smallest details hoping to find a technical detail that you can claim victory over.

I am not interested in "claiming victory" or "concentrating on the smallest details". I am interested in trying to have a discussion with you that consists of something more than you saying a word or phrase without any apparent understanding of what it actually means in the context of the discussion. Now, I might be wildly off base, but you're giving every appearance that you don't really understand pretty basic aspects of planetary energy balance very well. Or the relevance of absorption bands. Or how the climate would be changing in the absence of anthropogenic forcing. Or how parameterizations are used. Etc.

If you can't describe some pretty basic feedback processes, what is the point of me discussing anything with you? I have no confidence, based on what you've written so far, that you have enough of a grasp of the subject matter to have a coherent conversation. Hence my proposal to give to charity on your behalf.

If you actually do understand, or can quickly learn, the basics, then we can move on. From my perspective, I have confidence that it's not a waste of my time. Plus I get to expose someone to material that will actually benefit them in understanding the topic down the road. And I will make a donation to a good charity without having to research it and agonize over whether to give to X vs. Y group later on in the year.

Does this make sense?

Since you refuse to debate, I'll not try to debate you.

Here's the problem. There are things that are not up for debate. Unless we are both in agreement on those things, there can be no meaningful debate about the things that actually are in question. Does that make sense?

From my perspective, the offer I am making is win-win for you. You are already spending time arguing on Fark. You get to take money away from me and give it to a worthy cause. All you have to do is demonstrate that you've got the foundation to have a meaningful discussion about the issue. Nothing more than an undergraduate in a relevant major would be expected to have.

THE GREAT NAME:ou idiot. Greenhouse effect theory said the upper atmosphere should warm more than anywhere else, and certainly not cool.

Again, some things are simply not up for debate. Stratospheric cooling is a (confirmed) prediction of increasing greenhouse gases. There is no arguing about this, there is only reality and whether you choose to accept or rail against it.

I will make you the same offer I made Arsten. If/when you can, in your own words, explain why stratospheric cooling is a necessary consequence of increasing GHGs, I will make a donation to the charity of your choice, and then we can move on to the next thing for another donation. To be fair, this one is a little more technical than Stefan-Boltzmann's behavior as a negative feedback, so I will give you an enormous head start:

You're confusing the expectation of increased warming aloft in the troposphere per the MALR with what should be happening in the stratosphere and above.

That should be more than enough to get you where you need to go. What do you say?

But I thought climate change meant MORE tornadoes? and they were going to be 10X and intense?

According to the tee vee, intensity only comes from Mountain Dew. Obviously, this high from "Doing the Dew" as kids these days call it will dramatically increase the intensity of tornadoes.

To combat this, I am submitting a bill before Congress to outlaw all tornadoes that are reaching maturity from imbibing this harmful beverage. This will generate millions in revenue and keep people from being flug across the landscape like rag dolls. This will mean more alone time and togetherness, which will increase the number of children we are producing, to hopefully reach the 2.1 sustainability figure we need to survive as a country. We must think of our future: the children.

Jon Snow:THE GREAT NAME: ou idiot. Greenhouse effect theory said the upper atmosphere should warm more than anywhere else, and certainly not cool.

Again, some things are simply not up for debate. Stratospheric cooling is a (confirmed) prediction of increasing greenhouse gases. There is no arguing about this, there is only reality and whether you choose to accept or rail against it.

I will make you the same offer I made Arsten. If/when you can, in your own words, explain ...

Absolutely not. You made the initial claim, so it is on you to support your assertion that climate models predicted cooling of the upper atmosphere. Note that this prediction has to be dated substantially IN ADVANCE of the observations. No naughty substituting hindcasting for empirical confirmation.

Just for kicks I will provide a demonstation of the cheat used by Jon Snow in this thread (it is common among climatists):

You and I are in a room. You want to open the window and I want to stop you. If it is hot in the room, I say "opening the window will let the heat in" (it is hot outside). If it is cold I say "opening the window will let a breeze in and make us colder".

You open the window anyway and after having done so you notice that my prediction did not come true. I now cite whichever of the two arguments above I did not make before. If I mentioned heat before I now mention breeze and vice-versa. I then *insist* that that was my position all along.

Essentially, there are two factors in play here:

1. In any sufficiently complex scenario, there are conflicting forces on pretty much every variable. Thus, you can argue for any change of any variable in any direction.

2. If you are willing to simply insist that your previous clams were not what they actually were, you can easily make sure you never have to admit to being wrong.

THE GREAT NAME:Absolutely not. You made the initial claim, so it is on you to support your assertion that climate models predicted cooling of the upper atmosphere. Note that this prediction has to be dated substantially IN ADVANCE of the observations. No naughty substituting hindcasting for empirical confirmation.

I am happy to provide citations for the prediction. Examples abound as this is a fundamental prediction, not of "greenhouse theory' [sic] but atmospheric physics.

See, for example, Manabe and Wetherald, 1967:

Or Manabe and Wetherald, 1975:

Now I would like you to explain why this should be so, per the arrangement I offered Arsten (provided you accept this deal).

Like him, you are making wildly inaccurate claims that give me no confidence that you can discuss this topic in an informed manner, and establishing some baseline of knowledge is necessary before advancing a dialog.

Note that in giving you proof of the prediction, I've also given you another huge pointer to the explanation for why this is so. All you have to do is explain it in your own words. There's no trickery here, no slight of hand. This is basic stuff an undergraduate in a relevant major is expected to know.